Appellate Court Can't Direct Party To Deposit Part Of Amount Covered By Impugned Verdict As Condition To Condone Delay: Kerala High Court

The delay condonation plea and the appeal filed by the revision petitioner were dismissed by the Sessions Court citing non-compliance with its order to pay maintenance arrears.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that it was legally impermissible for the First Appellate Court to impose a condition directing payment of any amount covered in the impugned appeal for considering the delay condonation petition.

“While considering a delay petition, a court is not expected to direct deposit of any amount covered by the verdict appealed and the duty of the court is to address whether sufficient cause shown to condone the delay, with a view to dispose of the delay petition. Imposing such a condition is not legally permissible. Therefore, while considering a delay petition the court cannot impose a condition to deposit part of the amount covered by the verdict impugned, as a prerequisite to condone delay in filing an appeal.”

The Revision Petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. He had approached the Sessions Court challenging the order of the Magistrate Court directing him to pay one lakh rupees compensation and maintenance amounts to his wife and son.

The Revision Petitioner submitted that the Sessions Court dismissed his delay condonation petition on the ground that he has not complied with its order to deposit some amount before the Court.

The Court found that the Sessions Court dismissed the delay petition and the appeal for non-compliance of its order directing payment of arrears of maintenance.

The Court referred to Sajan v State of Kerala (2023) where it was held that a First Appellate Court must dismiss appeal on merits after hearing the parties and examining the records of the case.

Therefore, it was stated that the Court could not direct the petitioner to deposit a portion of the amount of the impugned verdict as a pre-condition for considering the delay in filing the appeal.

As such, the Court held that the dismissal of the delay petition and appeal were illegal and set it aside.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates V.T.Madhavanunni, V.A.Satheesh

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496

Case Title: Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan

Case Number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 26 OF 2020

Click here to read/download Order